Debunk This

[maccy]

"1) controlled demos do not make a building fall faster than freefall; and"

From what I have heard, building implosions fall faster than free-fall. I know at the very least:

1. It falls faster than free fall with air resistance because the air is blown out of the floors.

I may have been misconstruing it, but I also thought it fell faster than free-fall in vacuum because of the pressure differences created by the explosions. I have been looking and went to implosionworld.com but found nothing to explicitly refute or state this. If someone could post a link somewhere which explicitly refutes or confirms this I would gladly concede the point.

Read this:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

And think about what a demolition would look like if it really blew all the air out of a building.

Or how it would even be possible to do that.

 

[imstellar28]

Yes, I read it and acknowledged it in my post. Did you not read my post?

He presents absolutely nothing to back up his claims of 'optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.'

Refute this for me: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

Optical illusion? Faked video?

Which face of the building are we looking at when we see the bent/broken beams or facade. Is that where the plane hit? Because if so it explains their deformation.

 

[WildCat]

What is the consensus on this board for the time it took for WTC7 to collapse?

It was 13 seconds from the time the penthouse fell into the building and the time that WTC 7 collapses below the buildings around it, but there are a dozen or so storys to go yet. So it is a little more than 13 seconds.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Gravy]

Which face of the building are we looking at when we see the bent/broken beams or facade. Is that where the plane hit? Because if so it explains their deformation.

No, the prominent inward bowing of the exterior columns was on the south face of the north tower, and the east face of the south tower, where the collapses initiated. You really need to read the NIST report.

 

[WildCat]

Which face of the building are we looking at when we see the bent/broken beams or facade. Is that where the plane hit? Because if so it explains their deformation.

The plane impacted the north face of WTC 1, the pics of the bowing are from the south face.

 

[stateofgrace]

It has been asserted that the WTC 1 weighed 200,000 tons.........then lots of calculations.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html

"The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design"

"Weighed 500,000 tons"

"Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons."

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

Debunked.

 

[apathoid]

The plane impacted the north face of WTC 1, the pics of the bowing are from the south face.

The Trinity video is of WTC2 and is looking north at the south face. Not sure which facade was hit by flight 175, but I think it was the southern face.

 

[A W Smith]

If im not mistaken. The camera in the Trinity church video is zooming in on the east face of the south tower. (two)

 

[TraitorBasher]

No, the prominent inward bowing of the exterior columns was on the south face of the north tower, and the east face of the south tower, where the collapses initiated. You really need to read the NIST report.

I'm not too sure about the NIST report since Dr Frank Greening, who posts on 911myths.com, described it as "seriously flawed."

 

[apathoid]

If im not mistaken. The camera in the Trinity church video is zooming in on the east face of the south tower. (two)

Yep, I think you're right and I think UA 175 hit the opposite side, so his argument is of course invalid.

edit: his being imstellar; not Wildcat

 

[Gravy]

I'm not too sure about the NIST report since Dr Frank Greening, who posts on 911myths.com, described it as "seriously flawed."

Oh? Do you think the photos and videos of the towers, which NIST used in its analyses of the bowing, are faked?

Try reading Greening's papers on 911myths, which refute the woo. Please stop your silly behavior.

 

[A W Smith]

Yep, I think you're right and I think UA 175 hit the opposite side, so his argument is of course invalid.

UA175 hit on the south side off center towards the east on the south tower Flight 11 hit on the north side of tower 1 (the north tower)


(thanks for the HB earlier gravy )
I was not sure you were serious about WIKI. been a slow motion day.

 

[TraitorBasher]

Oh? Do you think the photos and videos of the towers, which NIST used in its analyses of the bowing, are faked?

Try reading Greening's papers on 911myths, which refute the woo. Please stop your silly behavior.

Greening is agnostic and his distaste for this forum is clearly well placed.

 

[Gravy]

Yep, I think you're right and I think UA 175 hit the opposite side, so his argument is of course invalid.

edit: his being imstellar; not Wildcat

Flight 175 hit the south side, and the bowing was at the northeast, where debris was piled up and the fires were the worst.

Optical illusion, wooites?

 

[Gravy]

Greening is agnostic and his distaste for this forum is clearly well placed.

You clearly haven't read his papers.

If you have something specific to address, please do so. Sorry, but I doubt if anyone cares about your uninformed opinions.

 

[qarnos]

covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html


Seems pretty solid to me, can anyone provide some reasons as to whats wrong with it?

A quick suggestion - why don't you look through all the claims and find the ones which haven't already been debunked 1,000 times over before challenging us to debunk them?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Which face of the building are we looking at when we see the bent/broken beams or facade. Is that where the plane hit? Because if so it explains their deformation.

so you think planes hit the WTC? yet in your opening post you link to spook911s blog, who thinks no planes hit the WTC

what sort of logical tapdances were required for you to think he is a credible source?

 

[pvt1863]

However, it does not matter what temperature the columns heated. It could have been 1100 C, 1500 C, pick a temperature. It also does not matter if the columns bowed. They could have twisted, bent, fatigued, expanded, shortened, changed properties, or whatever. The columns could have lost their safety factor. They could have lost ALL their fire-proofing. It does not matter. The fact is those columns were able to handle the FULL building load during fire when they were at their weakest state.

I must have been absent the day my professor explained that having a sufficiently high safety factor makes a structure invincible. Of all the days to miss in my four years of mechanical engineering in college...

Seriously, you will never find a simple, all-encompassing safety factor for the towers because one doesn't exist. To build on Architect's explanation, a structure like the towers is too complicated to have such a simple factor. Safety factors as described by imstellar28 are only useful in simple devices that don't have many failure mechanisms. An elevator has an easy to determine safety factor because there is only one significant way for an elevator to fail, and only one type of force would cause that failure. A building is very different. Many different supports are reliant on each other, forces are not evenly distributed, forces are not uniformly directed, and many different mechanisms can cause an element to fail. Having so many failure mechanisms and so many forces involved means that any all-encompassing safety factor would be too complicated to be useful.

What is more, safety factors rarely (if ever) consider damage. If an elevator says it can carry 2500 lbs and has a safety factor of two, then it is designed to carry 5000 lbs during normal operating conditions. If you light the elevator on fire or damage the cables/brakes, then the safety factor becomes meaningless. So even if there was a safety factor for the towers, it would have been rendered non-applicable by the plane impacts and the fires.

 

[TraitorBasher]

You clearly haven't read his papers.

If you have something specific to address, please do so. Sorry, but I doubt if anyone cares about your uninformed opinions.

Do you value his very informed opinion? I have read his papers and the thread he started here.

 

[Gravy]

Do you value his very informed opinion? I have read his papers and the thread he started here.

It's not his opinions that I value most. It's the application of his knowledge.

Glad to hear that you've read his papers. Do you have any major disagreements with them?